As cell phones continue to evolve, we become more focused on our phones and what is happening in our virtual world. We also have become more dependent on them for information, through search engine apps such as Google or Safari. Social media such as Twitter and Facebook, have also taken part in making our lives revolve around them.

For anyone who has attended school for the last decade, we understand the school policies that involve taking away our phones. The policies are simple: If you are on your phone during class time or while your teacher is talking, it gets taken away and you can pick it up (sometimes only a parent can) at the end of the school day. This policy in itself constantly receives backlash, not only from students but from parents as well. Many consider it theft, but sometimes it's the only way to get a student off their phone.

Many parents have been upset by policies such as these because they pay for their students' phone plans, not the schools, and they also aren't always able to make it to school before the offices close to pick up the phone because they had to work.

So why such a drastic decision?

The superintendent is claiming that the issue of cell phones is that they have become an "addiction." He isn't wrong but that is not their place to decide, that is the job of the parents to regulate. Not the teachers, and certainly not the school district.

Although this policy is so new, it is already receiving mass amounts of backlash. I totally understand why. After reading the Facebook comments on the original article, many parents are claiming this is a form of extortion. In some parents' eyes, teachers are already stealing the phones, but to also charge them money to get their phone back is insane.

Some people are claiming that charging these students, is yet another way to single out the children that are not as well off financially. We haven't even solved the issue of students not receiving a lunch for not having the full amount of lunch money on their accounts. Now, we want to charge students to get their confiscated personal property back?

The superintendent claims the money will be going towards food banks and the districts clothing closet. That's cool and all, but for the students that actually need those resources, if they have their phone taken away at any point, then they're paying for the very resources the school district claims is free.

Before the argument arises of, "Well, if you're poor, why do you have a phone, and why does your child have a phone?" Please remember that there are programs that allow families free phones on limited plans. And that not everyone buys the latest and greatest phones, some still have older models of smartphones that they use that are extremely low cost.

This policy may not last long, but if it does, I'm curious to see where it leads other school districts around the country, and if they'll follow or understand why it's a bad idea.